All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

[Davidpt]

Jesus taught in parables and stories about the kingdom, its manifestation, and those who would partake. An important aspect (not the entire point) of the Kingdom, its manifestation, and those that would be brought into inherit it, is the destruction of Jerusalem:

• Matthew 8:11-12 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
• Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
• Matthew 22: 7-10 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
• Luke 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near

The point wasn't that YOU believe the parable has anything to do with the millennium. The point was that when Premil interprets the parable of the minas THROUGH THEIR FRAMEWORK so as to confirm their already held position that its not about the final judgment, but the millennium, you agree, its eisegesis. But for some reason when you interpret the parable through your framework so as to confirm your already position that its not about 70 ad nor the millennium, but the final judgement, its all the sudden not eisegesis. It's quite ironic.



I think looking at surrounding context is the first step in helping to interpret a passage. If the surrounding context helps to interpret the passage, and that interpretation fits in with my subjective framework, then great! If the surrounding context interprets the passage in such a way as to disagree with my subjective framework, then my framework is the problem. not the surrounding context. Cutting out surrounding context that doesn't agree with my framework is eisegesis.

All frameworks have contradictions, its just a matter of what contradictions are you willing to put up with. But What specific contradictions, from the historical context of the gospels being written pre 70ad and not YOUR personal framework, are produced by understanding the parable of the minas in luke 19 as having the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad occur at the same time as the return of the king?



only according to your subjective framework.

You have to yet to explain WHY vs 38-41 are not a part of the context, other than it disagrees with your framework - eisegesis

WHY are vs 38-44 not a part of the same narrative flow as vs 11-37? Verses 11-44 all take place “near Jerusalem” and with the “same crowd”? There is no distinct setting change nor audience change to suggest that 38-44 is all of the sudden not a part of the context. What reason, besides your own personal, subjective framework, are you using to suggest they are not a part of the context?

Matthew 25:14 ¶For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Maybe it’s just me, but Matthew 25:14–30 appears to be essentially the same parable as Luke 19:11–27. Given their similarities, how can you interpret Luke’s version based heavily on its surrounding context—like verse 43—while interpreting Matthew's without any comparable contextual anchor? In Matthew 25, where exactly is the kind of immediate historical backdrop (such as the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction) that you're relying on in Luke? There’s no clear mention, nor even a subtle hint, that places Matthew 25 within a first-century or 70 AD framework.

You clearly have a sharp mind, but in this case, it seems you're leaning too heavily on a hermeneutical method at the expense of spiritual discernment. These parables do not naturally point to the specific historical application you're insisting on. Sound interpretation must be guided not only by contextual analysis, but by the wisdom to recognize when a passage speaks to a broader, more timeless reality than just one historical event.

BTW, my thoughts but not my typical writing style. IOW, chatgpt re-worded some things for me here and there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 25:14 ¶For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Maybe it’s just me, but Matthew 25:14–30 appears to be essentially the same parable as Luke 19:11–27.

I agree 100%.

Given their similarities, how can you interpret Luke’s version based heavily on its surrounding context—like verse 43—while interpreting Matthew's without any comparable contextual anchor? In Matthew 25, where exactly is the kind of immediate historical backdrop (such as the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction) that you're relying on in Luke? There’s no clear mention, nor even a subtle hint, that places Matthew 25 within a first-century or 70 AD framework.

You clearly have a sharp mind, but in this case, it seems you're leaning too heavily on a hermeneutical method at the expense of spiritual discernment. These parables do not naturally point to the specific historical application you're insisting on. Sound interpretation must be guided not only by contextual analysis, but by the wisdom to recognize when a passage speaks to a broader, more timeless reality than just one historical event.

Well said. You make a great point here. He focuses a lot on exegetical principles, but never talks about the most important one, which is spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-16). One thing the Holy Spirit guides us to do is not just look at surrounding verses for possible help in determining the context of a passage, but to also look at other scripture like you have done here with Matthew 25:14-30. I pointed to Matthew 25:31-46 as having similarities and he acted as if it wasn't a legitimate thing to do to look at Matthew 25:31-46 for help in understanding what the parable in Luke 19:11-27 is about because he thinks that is eisegesis and not exegesis. I completely disagree.

The parable clearly is talking about the return of Jesus and about rewards being given to believers at the same time as punishments being given to unbelievers. No such thing happened in 70 AD, so we can rule out the parable having anything to do with 70 AD. He calls this eisegesis, but I call his opinion on that nonsense. Comparing scripture with scripture is exegesis. Of course, not all similar scriptures are necessarily directly related to each other, but it's still something that should be taken into consideration. In this case, there is only one event that involves rewards and punishments being given at the same time when Jesus returns and that's in relation to His future return at the end of the age.